Democrats! Today's news for August 29, 2016

Today's news has the many flaws of Democratic Party politicians in all their infamy. 

New York Post:

Anthony Weiner sexted busty brunette while his son was in bed with him

This is baby-sitting — Anthony Weiner-style. 

While his wife, Huma Abedin, travels the country campaigning for Hillary Clinton, the disgraced ex-congressman has been sexting with a busty brunette out West — and even sent her a lurid crotch shot with his toddler son in the picture, The Post has learned. 

The stay-at-home cad shot the revealing photo while discussing massage parlors “near my old apartment” shortly after 3 a.m. on July 31, 2015, a screen shot of the exchange shows.

Suffice it to say, the details of the story are inappropriate, especially considering he is married. But this wouldn't even be a story except for the fact he is married to Hillary Clinton's top aide.

Speaking of Hillary...

Washington Post:

Hillary Clinton had the chance to make gay rights history. She refused.

During her first run for president in 2008, Hillary Clinton had an opportunity to become an undisputed leader in the gay rights movement. 

As she prepared for a forum on the gay-oriented Logo network, she reached out to her friend Hilary Rosen, a political consultant who is a lesbian. Rosen expressed frustration that so many mainstream political figures opposed legalized same-sex marriage, and she challenged Clinton to speak out for a community that had strongly supported her. 

Clinton refused. 

“I’m struggling with how we can support this with a religious and family context,’’ Rosen recalled Clinton telling her. Clinton just wanted to know the best way to explain the position.

...Clinton eventually got where her friends wanted her to go, though her change of heart came when the political risk had disappeared — close to a year after similar shifts by President Obama and Vice President Biden. 

Mind you, this is a flaw shared by most politicians everywhere. They are unable to take a principled stand by themselves. Unfortunately, this is a bad quality in a "leader".

Speaking of empty pantsuits...

Wall Street Journal:

An Internet Giveaway to the U.N.

Long story short: Icann, the organization which controls the Internet, will no longer have its monopoly status when the U.S. government gives up control of the Internet. As the article points out:

Without the U.S. contract, Icann would seek to be overseen by another governmental group so as to keep its antitrust exemption. Authoritarian regimes have already proposed Icann become part of the U.N. to make it easier for them to censor the internet globally. So much for the Obama pledge that the U.S. would never be replaced by a “government-led or an inter-governmental organization solution.”

Oops.

But we still have Obamacare, right?

Wall Street Journal:

Health Insurers’ Pullback Threatens to Create Monopolies

The new study, by the nonpartisan Kaiser Family Foundation, suggests there could be just one option for coverage in 31% of counties in 2017, and there might be only two in another 31%. That would give exchange customers in large swaths of the U.S. far less choice than they had this year, when 7% of counties had one insurer and 29% had two. 

...At least one county—Pinal in Arizona—is at risk of having no insurers offering marketplace plans next year, despite talks between regulators and insurers aimed at filling the void.

Heck, even under Obamacare, you can't keep your coverage if you like it!

Speaking of government healthcare...

Activist Post:

Harvard Study Finally Admits 

Drug Prices Are High Because Govt Grants Big Pharma A Monopoly

In what can only be described as paradigm-shattering research on drug prices, the Journal of the American Medical Association has officially recognized why drug prices skyrocket in America. Big pharma is granted a monopoly by the State which effectively eliminates their competition and allows them to charge any price they want — so they do.

The new paper, published on August 23,  “The High Cost of Prescription Drugs in the United States: Origins and Prospects for Reform,” set out to  “review the origins and effects of high drug prices in the US market and to consider policy options that could contain the cost of prescription drugs.”

What the paper’s authors, Harvard Medical School doctors Aaron Kesselheim and Jerry Avorn, and jurist Ameet Sarpatwari, found and subsequently admitted, shatters the very assertion that government regulation in the market is needed to keep medical care costs low. In fact, their findings were quite to the contrary.

According to the paper:

The most important factor that allows manufacturers to set high drug prices is market exclusivity, protected by monopoly rights awarded upon Food and Drug Administration approval and by patents.

Imagine that. So basically all the efforts that the Bush and Obama administrations put into "fixing" the costs were actually caused by the government in the first place? Naturally, the FDA is still chugging along as before, untouched by anything our bumbling politicians have tried.

But don't expect the Democrats to ever fix this. They believe government can do no wrong. Will Rogers said it best: "I am not a member of any organized party — I am a Democrat."

The accomplishments of our presidential candidates

In a National Post editorial, Rex Murphy sums up Hillary Clinton's rise perfectly:

There are some who see the prospect of Hillary Clinton winning the U.S. presidency as a milestone for modern feminism and women in general. Yet Clinton’s decades-long march to the White House owes much of its success to her rapscallion, silver-tongued husband, Bill Clinton. She did not storm the citadel of male power and privilege from the outside; she was escorted in under the banner of one of its most flamboyant high achievers. She came into politics by the back door of her mate’s male prowess. She may be the first female presidential nominee for a major party, but it’s hard to say she shattered glass ceilings. She has always had Bill’s key to the penthouse.

Bill Clinton was everywhere before her — always in front, opening every door, setting up the machinery for her advance and enabling her to reach a standing that she could never have achieved without him. The Hillary Clinton story is, in this case, A Handmaid’s Tale.

The true feminist icons were not enabled by men — they rose to the top on their merits and prowess alone. Consider the example of Golda Meir, who was elected prime minister of Israel nearly 50 years ago — before the advances of progressive thinking, before the societal push to get more women into public life. Meir was a pioneer, at a time when female heads of government were virtually unheard of.

On the other hand, Donald Trump is given far too much credit for his wealth, which he inherited from his father, Fred Trump. If Donald has any self-made virtue, it is as a shill for himself.

Ironically, both of the third party candidates, Libertarian Gary Johnson and the Green Party's Jill Stein, were self-made. Before entering politics, Johnson started his own mechanical contracting business and grew it into a multi-million dollar success story. As for Stein, she was a practicing physician for two decades before entering politics.

For personal accomplishments, the presidential choice is pretty clear: We have the silver spoon-fed elitists of the major parties versus the self-made candidates of the third parties.

This reminds me of the Grail choice in Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, where the Grail Knight said, "But choose wisely, for while the true Grail will bring you life, the false Grail will take it from you." Amazing how it was the "poor" cup which was the actual Grail, and not the golden cup? I suspect the "golden" candidates of the major parties are similar false Grails.


"But choose wisely" - Indiana Jones and the... by WondaSouthard

The racist label

"Put simply, most white people in this country fear being called racist more than they fear any other thing in American public life."--Clay Travis

The quote above is from an article titled, "ESPN Argues Ryan Lochte Represents White Privilege, Fails Miserably". I am not interested in Lochte, who acted like a drunk frat boy in Rio. However, throwing the racism charge onto him is beyond absurd, since he did nothing that was even subtly racist. There were no minorities involved in his activities. Attaching him to "white privilege" is a silly elitist game.

If you want to understand how the racist label can be applied to Trump, but then be ignored by a large percentage of the voting public, look no further than frivolous racism charges like this. White America is tired of living in fear of this modern Spanish Inquisition. When we can't even do something stupid without being labeled a racist, even though no black people were involved, it has gone too far.

White America looks at how the Media treats Trump, and we actually sympathize with him. He says Mexican murders and rapists are being allowed into the country, and we know this is true. It isn't a blanket aspersion on all Mexicans, and we see that. Yet the Media paints him as a racist for it.

Just like blacks get profiled by cops, so too do whites get profiled by the PC police in our culture. This must end, or else true racism will come back. If you think Trump is racist, you ain't seen nothing yet.

Hillary and the racist Republicans: Today's news for August 26, 2016

New York Times:

Hillary Clinton Says ‘Radical Fringe’ Is Taking Over G.O.P. Under Donald Trump

Hillary Clinton delivered a blistering denunciation Thursday of Donald J. Trump’s personal and political history with race, arguing in her most forceful terms yet that a nationalist conservative fringe had engulfed the Republican Party. 

In a 31-minute address, building to a controlled simmer, Mrs. Clinton did everything but call Mr. Trump a racist outright — saying he had promoted “racist lie” after “racist lie,” pushed conspiracy theories with “racist undertones” and heartened racists across the country by submitting to an “emerging racist ideology known as the alt-right.”

Mrs. Clinton needs to realize we live in a democracy, where even racists get to vote. I would argue there are more racists on her side than Trump's side. The following video explains it nicely:

#AltRightMeans you realize the ALT-Left are the real racists. #MAGAhttps://t.co/dejO6AxJEG

— MAGS-4-TRUMP/PENCE16 (@magnifier661) August 25, 2016

That said, I am not suggesting racism is a good or even acceptable thing. But the problem is the accusation is overused by the Left in general, and by Hillary in particular here. She even props up what is really the only so-called obvious case of racism in Donald's past:

Mrs. Clinton detailed the Justice Department’s housing discrimination case against Mr. Trump during the 1970s, noting that the applications of black and Latino residents “would be marked with a ‘C’ — ‘C’ for colored.” 

The problem with that case is it was Donald's father, Fred, who ordered the racist policies in the company where the father called the shots. An article from the Leftist magazine The Village Voice described it:

Another rental agent said that Fred Trump had instructed him not to rent to blacks. Further, the agent said Trump wanted "to decrease the number of black tenants" already in the development "by encouraging them to locate housing elsewhere."

Admittedly, Donald did not stand up to his father, and he defended the practices after the fact:

Donald Trump charged in the press that the suit was part of a "nationwide drive to force owners of moderate and luxury apartments to rent to welfare recipients." 

"We are not going to be forced by anyone to put people...in our buildings to the detriment of tenants who have, for many years, lived in these buildings, raised families in them, and who plan to continue to live there. That would be reverse discrimination," he said. "The government is not going to experiment with our buildings to the detriment of ourselves and the thousands who live in them now." 

By today's standards, Donald's words and actions were racist. But this happened over 40 years ago. On top of that, he was defending his father's company (where Donald was president). It is possible Donald was being more of a sycophant than a racist.

If Donald was still doing these kinds of things, then a racism charge might be appropriate. In addition, if Ben Carson even suspected that Trump might be racist, would Carson be actively supporting Trump?

We need to get past this ugly period of the Leftist "Spanish Inquisition" of racism, where the racist label is used to invalidate anything the Left doesn't like. Frankly, it makes the charge carry less weight than it should.

Trump is all kinds of crazy, but racist? No.

Politico:

Clinton ad ties Trump to KKK, white supremacists

A video released Thursday by Hillary Clinton’s campaign makes the case that Donald Trump is the candidate of racists, white supremacists and neo-Nazis. 

“The reason a lot of Klan members like Donald Trump is because a lot of what he believes, we believe in,” a robed man identified as the Imperial Wizard of the Rebel Brigade Knights of the Ku Klux Klan says at the top of the video, followed by images of a Confederate flag fluttering in the wind, Trump waving after a speech, and a man performing a Hitler salute at what appears to be a Trump rally.

So? White supremacists actively support Trump. The Communist Party USA actively supports Hillary Clinton. Will she disavow them? Unlikely. Expecting candidates to deny their supporters is absurd.

To be honest, the more Hillary pushes this charge, the more sympathetic Trump becomes. She is actively lumping him in with people who have been falsely accused of racism. If you want to know why racism is making a comeback, just look at decades of tossing the charge around in a meaningless way. It is "The Boy Who Cried Wolf" written large.

Ironically, if Hillary wanted to make the case that Trump is sexist, she might have some success there. Just ask Megyn Kelly.

In other news....

Fox News:

America's last Howard Johnson prepares for nostalgic visitors

With its signature orange roof and bright blue signage, Howard Johnson was once the most recognizable symbol of American family dining. 

The second to last roadside eatery in Bangor, Maine will be closing its doors-- and frying its last famous clam strips-- on Sept. 6th. 

That closing will leave just one Howard Johnson open in the U.S.-- in Lake George, N.Y. Owner John LaRock is sad that the once-booming restaurant chain is going the way of the dinosaurs. But he’s happy to keep serving customers and expects an uptick in business from nostalgic food fans. 

“We are doing very well. Especially on the weekends,” LaRock told FoxNews.com. “We hold 225 people and lines are out the door from 8 to 2 p.m.”  LaRock says he strives to keep the place as original as he can by still serving clam strips, ice cream and not serving alcohol. Many nostalgic TripAdvisor reviewers say the restaurant has maintained the charm-- and original food style-- of classic Howard Johnsons. 

I am saddened by this news. I always enjoyed their clam strips and vanilla milk shakes (which were the best I ever had). Nostalgia is the price I pay for getting old.

Hillary's lies: Today's news for August 25, 2016

While the Leftist Media covers for Hillary Clinton, the Right Media has no trouble disproving her lies as fast as they leave her mouth. Case in point:

CNN:

Clinton on foundation attacks: 'I know there's a lot of smoke, and there's no fire'

Hillary Clinton slammed Donald Trump and issued a strong defense of the Clinton Foundation Wednesday amid the Republican nominee's claims that she used public office for personal gain.

Speaking to CNN's Anderson Cooper in her first national news interview in nearly a month, Clinton pushed back against Trump's accusations and issued perhaps her most succinct answers on her use of a private email server during her time leading the State Department.

"What Trump has said is ridiculous," Clinton said. "My work as secretary of state was not influenced by any outside forces. I made policy decisions based on what I thought was right."

She added: "I know there's a lot of smoke, and there's no fire."

Trump has recently upped his attacks on Clinton and her family's namesake foundation, saying that foreign governments and business leaders gave primarily to get something in return.

"It is impossible to figure out where the Clinton Foundation ends and the State Department begins," Trump said Tuesday night at a rally in Austin, Texas. "The specific crimes committed to carry out that enterprise are too numerous to cover in this speech."

In the first place, it wasn't Trump who made up these allegations. It was the Associated Press. Trump merely echoed them.

The story later goes on to tell the truth, but it is showing far too much bias by burying the lede.

Circa:

Memo undercuts Hillary story on controversial Russian uranium deal, Clinton foundation

I brought up Hillary's Russian deal before, but here is more evidence that she actually sold out American interests for a Russian donation to the Clinton Foundation:

When Hillary Clinton was questioned about a deal that gave Russia increased sway over uranium markets, the former secretary of state and now Democratic presidential nominee said she had no reason to intervene in the decision and didn't even know her husband's foundation was being enriched by its beneficiaries.

"I was not personally involved because that wasn't something the secretary of state did," Clinton told WMUR a New Hampshire TV station in June 2015, the lone time she has addressed the controversy that first surfaced a year ago.

In fact, there was a reason to be concerned, according to diplomatic dispatches left sitting in public on the WikiLeaks site that have not garnered much media attention.

State Department officials in fall 2009 -a year before the U.S. approved the deal- obtained an internal strategy document from Russia's nuclear energy firm, Rosatom, that provided a warning about Moscow's intentions as it "flexes muscles" in uranium markets.

In one cable sent to Clinton, U.S. officials in Brussels warned Russia was about to strong arm U.S. ally Ukraine into a deal for "long-term supply of nuclear fuel" that could "shut" the U.S. company Westinghouse out of the market and extend Moscow's influence over Europe.

Please read the entire article, because it paints a rather unflattering picture of how Clinton knowingly sold out America to Russia.

How about some good news?

The Sun:

'SECOND EARTH' DISCOVERED Planet orbiting Earth’s ‘closest neighbour’ Proxima Centauri could be home to ALIENS

Astronomers have discovered a “second Earth” orbiting our closest star and it could have exactly the right conditions to sustain alien lifeforms.

Stargazers from the European Southern Observatory spotted the mystery world circling Proxima Centauri, a red dwarf star that’s just four light years away.

The planet is orbiting in the “goldilocks zone” of Proxima Centauri, which means it’s close enough to the  star that water would not freeze but far away enough so that water wouldn’t boil.

This is important because the presence of liquid water is thought to be necessary for the development of life.

Now scientists are trying to figure out a way of getting a robotic probe to the planet to see if it is home to alien organisms, although this is not a mission many of us will live to see.

Using current rocket technology, it would take 76,000 years to get to our nearest star.

However, there is hope that “light sail” technology currently under development could allow us to send a robotic probe to the planet in about 25 years.

Proxima Centauri is about 4.24 light years from Earth. Conceivably, if you could come up with a rocket which could get closer to the speed of light, it might be possible to reach that solar system in about 4.5 years, with a round-trip taking 9 years.

While the planet itself is roughly a third larger than Earth, the star it is orbiting is only slightly larger than Jupiter. This is a rough correlation, but it does have potential. I would guess we are looking at something closer to Mars than Earth, but I would love to be wrong.

Wednesday wisdom: Thomas Paine

"He who dares not offend cannot be honest."--Thomas Paine (1737-1809)

Agreement doesn't mean equivalence

If I agreed with the worst racist ever about how good babyback ribs are, would that make me a racist? Of course not. 

Unfortunately, that is the kind of argument the Media is using against Donald Trump. Case in point: The Salon article "Sexism, meet racism: Trump’s Angela Merkel comments expose the collision of misogyny and white supremacy". Here is a taste:

Donald Trump has a new obsession: comparing Hillary Clinton to Angela Merkel, the chancellor of Germany. During a Monday speech, Trump denounced the “massive immigration” to Germany under Merkel, for which he blames crime rising “to levels that no one thought would they would ever see.” He followed up this speech with press releases and a hashtag aimed at equating Clinton and Merkel. 

The choice is an odd one on its surface because most Americans don’t have an opinion about Merkel, even when they know who she is. But as Alice Ollstein of Think Progress persuasively argued on Wednesday, the meme makes more sense when one considers that white supremacists definitely know who Merkel is, because they hate her...

It’s yet another example of how Trump is mainstreaming white supremacist sentiment. 

Here is the logic laid out in its syllogistic form:

1. Trump thinks Merkel's immigration policy was flawed.
2. White supremacists think Merkel's immigration policy was flawed.
3. Ergo, Trump is a white supremacist.

In case you aren't familiar with syllogisms, here is the classic syllogism:

1. God is love.
2. Love is blind.
3. Ray Charles is blind.
4. Ergo, Ray Charles is God.

While syllogisms aren't necessarily as silly as the Ray Charles example, they tend to run off the tracks when they make flawed assumptions (i.e. "Love is blind" is not factually provable).

In the case of the Salon article, it assumes that only white supremacists disagree with Merkel's immigration policy. In actuality, there are many reasonable Germans who aren't happy with it. When you consider 64% of German's don't want her running for re-election, and immigration is the most controversial topic in Germany right now, it is safe to say there a good number of disgruntled Germans now. (Of course, to American Leftists, they just might assume a large percentage of Germans are white supremacists. Our Left is ignorant that way.)

Personally, I consider it reasonable to question Merkel's immigration policy, especially in the face of Western Civilization's "War on Islam". Inviting your enemy into your house, even if you don't actually call them an enemy by name, is crazy stupid. Even idiotic white supremacists can see this, even if our self-deluding Leftist Media is missing it.

As for Trump, I disagree with his views on continuing the "War on Islam" (although he does seem to be less aggressive than Hillary Clinton), but at least his immigration views are consistent with his militaristic views.